F

I think i'll just stick with the 2D, 24fps version thanks. I'd rather be able to enjoy the beauty of the sets, scenery, and FX rather than being distracted by cinematic tricks.

Not to mention saving myself a few bucks.

Click to expand...

Have you seen it or are you just mindlessly repeating the bias?

Because you can enjoy the sets, scenery and FX much better in HFR. Just saying.

There were many shots where it looked normal, even though in HFR. And when Bilbo took the ring, I also thought "now it looks "normal"". So I guess if you blur the footage a bit, it would look like a sharp 24fps image and "cinematic" again.

I only spent $3 to see it in high frame rate. I went to the first matinee showing which was 8.00. I had a 5.00 off ticket from buying the Lord Rings EE Blu Rays (three free tickets!).

There were so many cool things in the movie I barely had time to geek over...
I loved that Radagast had tried bird shit coating the right side of his face, that he was obsessed over a dying hedgehog, that he rode on a sled of super fast rabbits, that's made up but it feels VERY Tolkein.
I loved the elaborate flashback battle scenes, which looked AMAZING at the high frame rate.
Azog made his camp on Weathertop!
My biggest geek moment was Radagast getting jumped by the Witch King and that brief awesome shot of the spectral form of the Necromancer. That looked awesome!
LOTR still looks awesome to this day, but you can clearly tell when a live action figure is overlaid on a bigature model. In this movie, in high frame rate, it was completely flawless. When the Company was running through Goblin Town, it looked absolutely real. It felt like a physical location.
Funny to see Elrond displaying a sense of humor. And Christopher Lee looked REALLY old and emaciated, he's definitely aged since LOTR.
It's nice they actually included a few songs this time. But I really missed the songs the goblins sing when they're stuck in the burning tree! The Lonely Mountain song was really haunting and well done.

I saw it this weekend... and while I did enjoy it, I was also disappointed.

Loved everything having to do with Bilbo, was extremely bored by everything having to do with the "side stuff", Radagast, Necromancer, Elrond, the one armed Orc, all that. I really wish they'd done something more true to the spirit of the book instead of trying to make it another LOTR movie. 2 films would have been perfect. There's a "timeless fable" quality to the Hobbit novel that's missing here.

48FPS: I did see it in 48FPS 3d. The first half hour was incredibly distracting, with Bilbo moving around indoors. I got used to it though, and aside from fake looking outdoor rain, I was mostly engrossed.

Still I really REALLY wish the first 48-FPS movie had been something I didn't care so much about. I suspect that orientation period with my eyes has colored my impression of the whole Bag-End sequence, which I didn't like at all.

I give it a B-. It was enjoyable, and some parts were really well done - I enjoyed the trolls, and the Gollum sequence, which was OUTSTANDING! But I found a lot of the movie to be a dull-ish slog as well. I noticed the user rating is 80% (i'd go more like 75-77% myself), but it's in the right range I think. It's not so much that it's a step down from LOTR its that he took a very different story and seems to be trying to make it into LOTR, which is where it falls down imo. I think the decision to flesh out the side stories and appendixes stuff, and take away focus from the core book material, and thus make it 3 films, was a very bad one.

Having now seen the thing in flatscreen - without 3D, or the novelty of 48fps and IMAX - if I could lower my score on the poll I'd lower it to C-.

What the movie has going for it is beautiful scenery and the performances of some of the actors - Freeman, McKellan, Blanchett and Armitage chief among them. That said, it's overlong and overloud. The action is preposterous; by the third act everyone is Wile E. Coyote, repeatedly enduring impossible falls and violence while not appearing to suffer so much as a broken finger. That makes it hard to maintain much interest in the action.

Worst of all, the tone and hence the charm of the novel is mostly absent. They might as well bring in giant robots.

The action is preposterous; by the third act everyone is Wile E. Coyote, repeatedly enduring impossible falls and violence while not appearing to suffer so much as a broken finger. That makes it hard to maintain much interest in the action.

Click to expand...

I have to admit this bugged me quite a bit, especially during the underneath the Misty Mountains sequences. I didn't like how Bilbo fell some great distance into a crack instead of simply being separated from everyone else.

I saw the film and enjoyed it quite a bit (A-), but it is still not even close to the LOTR films.

I did see it in HFR/48fps - surprisingly our theater in our small town had the MAJORITY of screenings in HFR. It did not bother me at all - except in Ian Holm's 1st scene where he did look sped up - but after that it was flawless. Such an incredibly clear and detailed picture, just wow. I'll definitely look forward to seeing more films in HFR.

As for the film itself, I suppose I'm advantaged since I have not read the Hobbit. But I could certainly guess at which stuff was added.

Some positive standouts:
+ all the dwarves, loved all the characters, and good job of making them unique
+ Erebor, love seeing dwarf culture (plus dwarf girls) :-)
+ Martin freeman as bilbo
+ riddles scene, best in the film

Less than great standouts:
- the goblin king, too well spoken
- the cartoonish violence and physics when the dwarves are escaping the goblins
- the warg design (I prefer the Hyena wargs of LOTR)
- I was hoping for more from the score, other than the dwarf theme it all sounded too familiar for my liking

The Necromancer is Sauron, in his weakened form. Originally he was just an evil wizard but when Tolkien expanded on Middle-Earth for the Lord of the Rings, he retconned them into being one and the same. I imagine that's one of the discrepancies he would have fixed if he'd ever done the full rewrite on the Hobbit that he'd wanted.

The action is preposterous; by the third act everyone is Wile E. Coyote, repeatedly enduring impossible falls and violence while not appearing to suffer so much as a broken finger.

Click to expand...

That's my single biggest complaint regarding The Hobbit. It felt like watching a cartoon at times, and funnily enough, Road Runner came to my mind as well.

One thing I always loved about LOTR was the way action was handled. Sure, some of Legolas' acrobatics felt over the top, but overall it was very engaging and suspending disbelief was no problem at all.

BTW, I absolutely hated the vargs chasing Radagast scene. I could almost hear the Benny Hill music in my head while watching it. Very lame.

There are very very very very very very very few internet reviewers I can stand. It's one reason to hate the technology that enables humans to record themselves and post it on the web. Just because its possible, doesn't mean we want to hear your opinion. No matter how sarcastically you deliver it.

So, yes. I mostly avoid internet movie reviewers.

Click to expand...

Like posting on BBSes one might say...

Click to expand...

At least a BBS is a discussion board. And there's conversations and stuff. So... really....nothing like posting on a BBS.

Click to expand...

Riiiiiggghhht....we're supposed to take your bashing of the reviewer seriously because they're an "internet reviewer", but YOU are a BBS poster...

I saw this Friday night in 48fps IMAX 3D (supposedly with Dolby Atmos sound, but the film didn't seem to take advantage of it at all.)

Based on what reviews I saw beforehand, I expected the film to feel longer than it did. It didn't feel like almost three hours, but it was definitely erratically paced. It was much lighter than the LOTR films, which I think everybody has pointed out. Some of the action scenes went on too long, and the bit that probably irked me the most was when Bilbo fell down the cracks in the mountain, and apparently only suffered a few scrapes and bruises. Completely absurd. Or, for that matter, when Thorin was picked up in the warg's mouth, yet survived (with a little help from Gandalf.) Hello, puncture wounds? Even if Gandalf revived him (which seems to be the implication), unless he also healed the wounds, Thorin can look forward to dying of sepsis in short order. There's fantasy violence and then there's complete nonsense.

That said, I did enjoy it, and it was nice to return to Middle-Earth. It certainly wasn't on the level of the LOTR films, but I didn't really expect it to be, either.

As for the 48fps, most of the time I didn't notice it. However, a lot of the movements of the actors appeared really fast, and that was quite noticeable. It took some getting used to, but I suspect if I see another film or two in this format, I won't really notice it anymore.

I think all the criticism of the 48fps format is silly, though.

I will say that the 3D didn't add much. The higher frame rate (and IMAX projection) made a lot more difference, for my money.

Riiiiiggghhht....we're supposed to take your bashing of the reviewer seriously because they're an "internet reviewer", but YOU are a BBS poster...

Click to expand...

OT. But, I don't care if YOU take my "bashing" of an internet reviewer seriously or not. (Seriously, who is this "we," YOU're the only one who has commented negatively.... is this personal for you?) You can't see the difference between posting on a DISCUSSION board and watching some internet twit posting his rant about a movie.

Or, for that matter, when Thorin was picked up in the warg's mouth, yet survived (with a little help from Gandalf.) Hello, puncture wounds? Even if Gandalf revived him (which seems to be the implication), unless he also healed the wounds, Thorin can look forward to dying of sepsis in short order. There's fantasy violence and then there's complete nonsense.

Click to expand...

Do dwarfs catch sepsis? Did Gandalf use an anti sepsis spell? Does warg saliva have an antiseptic effect?